November 07, 2002
Direct Representation
So I came across this page in my surfing: Direct Representation. It talks about a flow from Plurality, to Proportional Representation (where if around 40% of voters vote "liberal", then around 40% of our representatives are liberal), to Direct Representation, which means that even the smallest 1% beliefs get represented.So I started thinking about the old conundrum, how much should our representative vote what we want him to vote, how much should we trust her to vote what is in our best interests to vote? And where should we fall when those two are at odds? Because basically, sometimes they ARE at odds. What do we do then?
It is hard because sometimes an appropriate choice is only appropriate because something else inappropriate has been bought into. And if that more basic platform were challenged, maybe the matter in question could be decided differently. But with the state of the US, we've got webs and complete hierarchies, hell, practical organisms based off of layers of fucked-up-choices someone made long ago. Or choices that were valid then and fucked up now. Or layers upon layers of fucked-up-edness where the crust of it is actually quite helpful. Do you break the crust? Conceptually that's a strong yes for me, but I'll bet someone could devise a scenario where my yes would be more tentative...
So what are the dangers of Direct Representation? Maybe it would only be a danger if it were implemented tomorrow, but if we moved towards it slowly, maybe it would gradually get more healthy.
And what of the fact that a valid reason against something like Direct Representation ("if we do that we'll have schools made out of gold and no national defense and we'll all die even though we know calculus really well!") is essentially a fear-based reason? A reaction that essentially validates the belief that we need that kind of protection?
There's also the belief that goddammit, the whole reason we elect
representatives is so we can delegate and not have to vote on every
little thing ourselves. If we're represented TOO directly, then maybe
it's just kind of beside the point. In other words, if the
representatives are working for us, when are we just micromanaging and
getting in the way?
Posted by Curt at November 7, 2002 07:11 PM
I was doing a report at the last minute, & i came onto this site & it helped me so much!!! Thank you!!!
Posted by: Lauren Stover at February 1, 2004 08:09 PMIf you are interested in Direct Representation, you should look at beyondpolitics.org, where what is described on the directrep.org site is developed in a way that considers the dangers you mention. In addition, the Beyond Politics concept includes a clearer and probably more effective understanding of the path from here to there. BP is based on Free Association/Delegable Proxy ideas. Delegable Proxy is a step beyond what is described on DirectRep, which is trying to visualize the details of the end of a process that will likely take us beyond what we can presently conceive. BP considers the generic problem, not just the specific problem of representation structures in governments, and FA/DP retains direct democracy features, which DirectRep does not. The Direct Rep ideas are a partial subset of the FA/DP concepts as they have been applied to situations requiring secret ballot. And you can find an email address for the founder of BP on the web site, it is an active organization, albeit still small. It is itself democratic, seriously attempting to be more than just one person's idiosyncratic idea.